From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11077 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2016 19:06:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 10975 invoked by uid 89); 14 Jan 2016 19:06:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Besides, Num, announces, disp X-HELO: eggs.gnu.org Received: from eggs.gnu.org (HELO eggs.gnu.org) (208.118.235.92) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 19:06:26 +0000 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aJnDw-0007QY-0e for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 14:06:24 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:53661) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aJnDv-0007QK-TP; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 14:06:19 -0500 Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3673 helo=HOME-C4E4A596F7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1aJnDu-0004UA-PM; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 14:06:19 -0500 Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 19:06:00 -0000 Message-Id: <83egdkgev9.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Pedro Alves CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <5697F02D.8090503@redhat.com> (message from Pedro Alves on Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:59:57 +0000) Subject: Re: [PATCH+doc] Fix PR threads/19422 - show which thread caused stop Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <1451950202-18024-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <5697ABE8.7060705@redhat.com> <83ziw8gltt.fsf@gnu.org> <5697D70A.1070602@redhat.com> <83k2ncggqw.fsf@gnu.org> <5697F02D.8090503@redhat.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-01/txt/msg00315.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:59:57 +0000 > From: Pedro Alves > CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > No: we already announce signals with "Program received signal". But > > with breakpoints, we just say "Breakpoint 1", not "Program hit > > breakpoint 1". > > Sure. Following your suggestion ends up with: > > Thread 1 "main": breakpoint 1 > Thread 1 "main" received signal SIGINT, Interrupt. > > which seems inconsistent to me. Do we really have to be consistent here? We weren't before your change. > > Besides, "hit a breakpoint" is jargon, which is another reason I > > wanted to get rid of it. > > What do you mean, jargon? "Hit a breakpoint" is jargon. We don't really "hit" anything. A breakpoint breaks, or triggers. > GDB already uses the term: > > (gdb) info breakpoints > Num Type Disp Enb Address What > 1 breakpoint keep y 0x000000000040073e in main at threads.c:40 > breakpoint already hit 1 time > ^^^^^^^^^^ Yes, but that one is pretty much confined to its corner. The message that announces a breakpoint is much more visible. Anyway, we can agree to disagree. No big deal.